TO: David N. Spergel, President (and a research director), Simons Foundation, NYC
FM: Bruce E. Camber
RE: Your work with Jim Simons, your work with numbers and concepts and also, your homepages particularly at Princeton, Twitter, Wikipedia, and as reported within the Simons Foundation 2022 Annual Report.
Second email: 14 June 2024 (Updated)
RE: Jim Simons. In his youth he enjoyed “…doubling numbers and pondering Zeno’s paradox…” That is multiplyimg and dividing by 2. Intuitively he knew there was something basic about base-2. So, yes, we live, we have a few ideas, and then we die. Now we begin to remember Jim Simon and his contributions to the intellectual fabric of our universe.
Dear Prof. Dr. David Spergel:
Would you agree that the Planck base units, although not profoundly understood are real numbers? ISO and other standards groups now recognize them.
Would you agree that these numbers manifest in space-time in some form? Is it possible that these numbers define the first space-time moment? If so, what might that look like?
Would you agree that in terms of a 3-dimensional thing that the sphere is the most simply constructed?
Might it stand to reason that the Planck natural units define a sphere (albeit an infinitesimal sphere)?
Do you know of any scholar who has followed an exponential expansion of natural units, for example, applying Planck’s units and base-2 to chart the universe? It requires just 202 notations to encapsulate the universe.
A recent discussion: https://81018.com/202-1/
My numbers are here: https://81018.com/chart/
Early History: https://81018.com/home/
An early explanation: https://81018.com/STEM/
You are a scholar’s scholar when it comes to conceptualization. If I am wasting your time with my questions, I apologize. I am in search of someone with answers. I would have enjoyed Jim’s answers. Perhaps you could answer for him. I would then like your permission to include it here: https://81018.com/simons/ Thank you.
Warmest regards,
Bruce
*****************
Bruce E. Camber
https://81018.com/
First email: Saturday, 19 August 2023 @ 6:20 PM (updated)
Dear Prof. Dr. David Spergel:
When I make a reference to a person, even if it is in the footnotes, I send them along a copy of that note. I also open my own research file, i.e. https://81018.com/spergel/ so I can begin a more focused analysis of that person’s work. As you can see, that’s started.
I was reading O’Callaghan “JWST’s First Glimpses of Early Galaxies Could Break Cosmology”, September 14, 2022 article in Scientific American. Your quote and the energy of your comments stopped me. Not much does. Because I wanted to go over it one more time, I opened this research file. Of course, the Simons Foundation is huge. Mathematics is respected as much as, perhaps more than, physics. Surely geometries and number theory are in that mix as well.
Now, I think science today has the ascent on the wrong syllable.
In the early days of Big Bang cosmology its infinitely small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense point [1] challenged our imaginations. In 1980 when Alan Guth added his hypothetical, uniquely-singular event of instantaneous inflation, many people balked, but nobody came up with a better idea. Notwithstanding, challenges to the theory kept being articulated, especially observational data from the WMAP, Planck ESA, Hubble (HST), and the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). There has been a fair amount of cleansing and tweaking of Big Bang cosmology; it’s been an ongoing effort. Controversies abound. Obviously thinking about the big bang, I laughed with Nathan Adams comment, “It’s a bit too early to say we’ve completely broken the universe.”[2]
In 2001 scholars were just starting to learn about the Planck’s base units; it took Frank Wilczek and his articles, Scaling Mt. Planck I, II, III, to begin demythologizing Max Planck’s 1899 work on natural units. Big Bang theorists have had no place for such tiny numbers. Back in 2012, when Freeman Dyson and Wilczek personally encouraged us (just high school teachers), we charted the universe with those Planck base units, all in 202 base-2 notations. It is the universe. It’s an all natural inflation and exponentiation. It’s 100% mathematical and geometrical. It gives us a context for what is happening in the universe much like the Big Bang but without all its mythopoetics. It frees us to reconsider a proper definition of the infinite which within this theory starts with an infinitesimal sphere. There is an expanded role for π (pi) that begins to address the open issues about gravity, dark matter-dark energy, and the physics beyond the standard model.
Given your goals and objectives, I thought you might be interested in our idiosyncratic work!
Thank you.
Warm regards,
Bruce
________________
Bruce. E. Camber
https://81018.com/bec/
214-801-8521
PS. Footnotes!
[1] Stephen Hawking, PBS-TV, Genius, 2016, “The answer, as most people can tell you, is the big bang. Everything in existence, expanding exponentially in every direction, from an infinitely small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense point, creating a cosmos filled with energy and matter. ”
[2] Jonathan O’Callaghan, “JWST’s First Glimpses of Early Galaxies Could Break Cosmology”, Scientific American, September 14, 2022 quoting Nathan Adams, University of Manchester, England, Go to the last section, A RUSH TO BREAK THE UNIVERSE, second paragraph. Jonathan O’Callaghan (@Astro_Jonny) Twitter, jonathanocallaghan.com
[Note] Often I add this paragraph about your work:
David Spergel, a theoretical astrophysicist and current president of the Simons Foundation in New York City, agrees. “I think what we’re seeing is that high-mass star formation is very efficient in the early universe,” he says. “The gas pressures are higher. The temperatures are higher. That has an enormous impact on the environment for star formation.” Magnetic fields might have arisen earlier in the universe than we thought, driving material to kick-start the birth of stars. “We might be seeing a signature of magnetic fields emerging very early in the universe’s history,” Spergel says.
###